Walking down the plank

When you aren't on top of your game, going to a big test should feel like walking down the plank. You know: in your shimmies, inching forward to a sea of doom and despair and those little cartoon sharks with knives and forks drooling at the thought of your carcass.

So when I walked from my house on Capitol Hill toward the Georgetown Law Center to take an LSAT that I was clearly unprepared for, you would think I would be suffering a spell of the knock-knees and "oh shit"s. But I wasn't.

Perhaps it was the fact that the morning was beautiful, the sky was clear and the birds were singing. Or, more poetically, that my route was plotted to purposefully take me in front of the Supreme Court and behind the Capitol buildings of these United States. What better way to throw off the chagrin by trying to soak in some of the collective 'awesomeness' feeling that these institutions inspire in me More likely, however, my trepidation was quashed because I had an ace up my sleeve: the option to cancel the test by filling in two little ovals on the back of the LSAT scan-tron and attesting to the fact that I understood I was paying $132 (the most expensive practice exam EVER) for the racketeering scheme known as Law School Admissions Council to not report my score.

Most definitely the latter. Sometimes sunk costs just have to be forgotten like ships in the bottom of the ocean. Take the money.

So what to do now? Well - I have no full-time job, just finished an awesome internship on "The Hill" and therefore have lots of time on my hands.

So now I've got to avoid truly walking the plank. I'm going to get-up and write every day. I am going to study early and late for this blazzin' test. I am going to offer my hallelujahs to God, and shoot out job applications and emails to people who might recognize what talent and values I can offer.

And if that doesn't work in the next month or so... I guess its shiver-me-timbers: I'm coming home, mom!

The "California Defense"

Apparently its not a good thing to tell non-Californians you are from California – especially when you are pleading your case before a Judge. To all of my Californicated folks: if you did not already know it, seems a lot of folks are drinking way too much haterade when it comes to us "left coasters".

In traffic court today, I asked the Judge to dismiss my case, arguing that the government (the Common Wealth of Virginia) did not execute due diligence in posting proper warnings that an ENTIRE freeway became “High Occupancy Vehicle” (HOV) lanes during certain time periods. I made what I thought was a solid case: I am new to the D.C. Metro area, there is no way I could have known I was breaking a law. In California, the “carpool” or HOV signs posted on top of the freeway designate particular lanes as HOV. I brought pictures and plotted my entire trip on Google Maps and showed definitively that there were about 5 seconds of time for me to have read the single sign saying that from 4pm to 6:30pm an entire section of Route 66 mandated 2 or more persons in a vehicle for you to legally drive. The fine for a first time offense is higher than the first time offense for driving 30 miles over the speed limit.

After listening to me speak, the Judge looked up and said “Saying you are from California is just about the worst defense you could use. Let me give you a little tip: do not tell people you are from California.” He then proceeded, saying that he could not show leniency to me because he showed no leniency to other people who driving in the HOV lanes. While this was not the case – he had made exceptions for others that very day – I felt that I had made the grave and intractable error of mentioning I was new to the area, that I was from California. Figuring my case was hopeless, I nonetheless felt the need to let him know that I was proud to be Californian, and that it wasn't a defense, merely germane to the facts of the case. I was new to town and did not woefully break the law. Speaking so clearly and with my Californian accent must have further agitated the Judge. He stared blankly at me before telling me to go pay the fine.

In retrospect, I probably should have come up with my own outlandish story to get the case dismissed on a technicality. I should have used some sort of cheap trick to get off the hook. In stead, I told the truth, and I told it as a saw it. I have to wonder if the “C” bomb hadn’t dropped, whether or not I would have walked out of court with my $125. I guess we will never know.

I did learn one important lesson though: Californians are a hated bunch. I think we might even be worse than “Yankees.” It makes sense. California has it all: the Beach Boys. Cultural hegemony over the the U.S., the most diverse and most productive agriculture in the States, the smartest and brightest engineers (even if we import a lot of them), and the largest range of climate and natural resources in these here United State. We started hyphy, made crunk and organic popular, speak the most languages and have the most sensible marijuana policies. We drive the best cars, have the coolest Governator, the best higher education public school system, and the best Mexican food this side of the border.

Now I am not naive enough to think know everything is gravy. We Californians need to get our act together with the budget, need to actually do a better job preparing for wild fires, need to step it up on issues such as marriage equality and we could probably use a few less plastic surgeons and lawyers. But all in all, I have a lot of <3>

Who am I?

Wow.

Its been 5 months and 5 days since I posted anything. I have been writing, but not nearly as much as I feel I should have. I've lived a lot of wild adventures, random stories to be sure. Now they exist and can only be shared in the perspective of what my mind has hard-wired, rather than more of an immediate "limbic" response. Frankly, I don't even know if I want to tell it. I do not know if I have time. I wonder who would even give a damn, other than me.

But taking a look at my writing, I can reflect with two points. First: I'm proud of myself for focusing and concentrating on doing some serious exposition. Second: I do not think my writing sucks; grammatically, syntax and the lexical nature of it is fine. But it lacks a certain style, it reeks of someone who is trying too hard. It needs serious work - and I have done little such work since being laid off in April.

As of late I have felt compelled to really think about how I want my life to be defined. The question "Who am I?" peers down at me when I wake up, and is my first conscious breath when I wake up. In fact, not unsurprisingly, my dreams are filled with wanderlust, familiar worries and strange combinations of new environmental settings and job-announcements. I think this compelling force is spurred on by, first and foremost, the fact that I have so much opportunity but no real direction. Second, I, like many Americans, are provoked by all of the recent high-profile deaths. The lives of Michael Jackson, Senator Teddy Kennedy, his late sister, and Robert Novak were remarkable. Their deaths, which are really a cause to celebrate their lives, make me ponder what it is I would want people to say about me when I no longer exist on this plain.

One of the ways I would like people to view me, is as a writer - a contributor to the unique tradition of wordsmithing. As they say: you know how you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice.

With that, I am going to bed. I have an incredibly busy day from here on out. Ah the life of a semi-employed, homesick recent-transplant to Washington D.C. with high hopes and aspirations and no real clue which path to take in life. Perhaps my story will some day flow out, depending on if I can think of an interesting way to write it.

The Battle Over CA-10

Online-Virality  vs. Political Reality

   This morning I was checking my RSS feeds on my blackberry. A story from Politico piqued my interest: "Announcing a Campaign on Twitter," a Scorecard post that brought to my attention the contest heating up in my very own District 10.

As an El Cerrito resident, I follow my Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who is said to resign if her nomination as an Undersecretary of Secretary of State is given the Senate stamp of approval. As excited as I am that my Representative has received this attention, I am frothing even more at the concept of a special election that is often messy though provides some benefits that the normal election cycles do not.

The Front runner is said to be State Senator who represents California Senate 7 District, Mark DeSaulnier . He has yet to even announced his candidacy and yet according to one source has received a tacit nod of approval from Tom Torkelson, who proceeded Senator DeSaulnier in the California district. This endorsement was pivotal, but in no way seems to be a clincher for a would-be Represenative DeSaulnier.

Another legislator, Joan Buchanan, who was recently elected to California Assembly District 15 has also been bumped around the blogsphere as a potential candidate. The Assemblywoman confirmed her intentions to run last week. 

And then there may be the unknowns, the Dark Horses that may throw their hat in. One of them, who indeed announced his candidacy through Twitter, is Adriel Hampton. Mr. Hampton works as an investigator in the San Francisco Attorney's office. While it is unclear that this fellow Cal Berkeley alumnus has the capacity for legislative experience, what is clear is his passion and his ability to act as a first mover and create a viral campaign effort. 

Mr. Hampton's campaign blog has already received several hits and it is clear that he is capable of raising 'virtual support' and knows his way in the 2.0 world. The real question is: will he and any other tech-savvy would-be politico's be able to navigate the door-to-door gruel, speak-stumping, power-lunch alliance brokering and groveling for contributions that wins campaigns? Twitter is great for getting your name out there, but it does not create the 'personality cult' that is needed to win over supporters. It only helps manifest it.

Reality dictates that a lot of political campaigning is still about being on the ground and creating a presence. Mr. Hampton seems optimistic saying "President Obama showed us what loose networks of concerned citizens can do, becoming the first “social media” candidate. I want to use these new tools to join him in Washington DC to transform a government that has become strangely disconnected from the everyday realities of people..." The real test will be one that cannot be done from the safety of a computer: it will be his ability to inspire an army of volunteers and galvanize endorsement.

AIG Bonuses are a (green) Herring

This week, hordes of Americans wore green and got wasted. Just like St. Patrick’s Day is a good excuse to get hammered at lunch time, as the Royal Exchange bar near my work was a testament to Tuesday, the $165 million in bonuses doled out to AIG employees this weekend is an excuse for a media blitz to galvanize populist sentiment. Both of these blitzes will likely leave the public with hangovers.

President Obama was right calling the bonuses, to paraphrase, ‘insulting to our common sense and values’. His voice rang loudest in a chorus of Politicians calling for the heads (or the intestinal bowls, in the case of Senator Grasley) of AIG and demanding a list of the bonus recipients in order to ostensibly lambaste and publicly ridicule them. Yesterday Barney Frank,Chairmen of the House Financial Services Committee, demanded from AIG CEO Edward Liddy said list, or threatened a subpoena. Manhattan Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has already started an investigation into the matter. While Liddy, who was appointed by former Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson (along with some Goldman Sachs/Geithner advice) last year to lead the ailing business has reportedly asked for those receiving more than $100,000 to give back the money, this will little assuage the bloodletting that politicians are calling for.

Indeed, along with House Democratic leadership, Congressman Steve Israel called the bonuses “… a mugging on Wall Street. And when you get mugged you want two things to happen. You want justice, and you want your money back.” So what is Congress’ plan? Tax the bonuses, as soon as possible. Congress really gets moving when the populist crowd is frothing. Meanwhile, Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner offers an executive solution to the problem: to take out $165 million from the upcomming $30 billion that Treasury plans to support AIG with, increasing Federal shareholder value to over 80% of AIG ownership. Taking back $165 out of $30 billion is still a drop in the bucket. It’s like taking a drop of alcohol away from the drunkard who’s grabbing for the whole bottle. This is neither justice, nor will it get our money back.

What is really needed is a more permanent solution that puts greedy drunkards of the public money into rehabilitation and creates huge incentives to move us away from the riskiest moral hazards. This kind of talk may leave many running to do the toilet seat prayer: but unless we sober up to the reality that unfettered greed, political showmaking and bandage solutions will get us no-where, we’ll continue to find any excuse we can to binge on toxicity in the name of green.

Reposting: Immigration Reform, Not Raids, Will Restore Dignity in Meatpacking Jobs

For Immediate Release CIS Report Gets Diagnosis Right, Cure Wrong Immigration Reform, Not Raids, Will Restore Dignity in Meatpacking Jobs March 16, 2009  Washington, D.C. - The Center for Immigration Studies is issuing a report on the impact that the immigration-enforcement raids at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in 2006 had on wages and working conditions for the company's workforce. In its attempt to advocate for the failed "enforcement-only" policies of the past, the report more effectively illustrates the need for comprehensive immigration reform, albeit unintentionally. The Immigration Policy Center's Director, Angela Kelley, issued the following statement:   "The Center for Immigration Studies may not realize it, but the findings of its most recent report better highlight the need for comprehensive immigration reform rather than a regression back to the failed  'attrition through enforcement'  tactics of the last administration. The report contends that after immigration raids at six Swift & Co. meatpacking plants, the company hired more authorized workers whose arrival contributed to a rise in wages and improved working conditions. We agree with CIS that all workers benefit from a documented workforce. However, we part ways with CIS on the best way to achieve that goal. CIS' preferred solution of raiding businesses around the nation and deporting 12 million people would not only tear apart innumerable families and communities, but would also be monumentally expensive and economically disruptive. According to one estimate, trying to deport every undocumented immigrant in the country would cost more than $200 billion dollars over five years. It is true that wages and working conditions will improve for all when there are no longer undocumented workers in the labor force who can be exploited. However, this is best accomplished by creating a path to legal status for the millions of undocumented workers already living in the United States. This would not only eliminate an exploitable workforce, but bring billions of additional dollars into the U.S. economy through increased tax revenue and consumer purchasing power.  CIS' report may get the diagnosis right, but in immigration - just like medicine - a diagnosis isn't worth much without a viable cure." ### For press inquiries contact: Wendy Sefsaf, 202-507-7524 (office) or email wsefsaf@ailf.org Andrea Nill, 202-507-7520 (office) or email anill@ailf.org

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC), established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Law Foundation. IPC's mission is to shape a rational national conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office A division of the American Immigration Law Foundation. Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org.

Rise of the Childish Cynics

"[What] the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." - President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address

Foolishness

Last week I read an article written by my cousin over at The Motley Fool. The article articulated the need for careful analysis of Government's role in the market rather than "[p]itting socialism and capitalism head-to-head in a Bloodsport-style death match."

As expected, the comments to his article quickly snow-balled into, what else, the fear of socialism and tepid concordance marked with anti-government saber rattling. I guess I should have expected this, given that it is an investment forum. Yet it seems odd: TMF is currently promoting its members take advantage of the Stimulus, calling it an opportunity matched only by... well... another 'Stimulus' signed into law under Ronald Reagan.

President Reagan's 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was an estimated $600 billion tax break, with billions more for defense contractors and small businesses. The tax break decreased government spending by almost 3% of real GDP. This helped balloon, not contract the deficit, and while it was certainly a great time for the wealthy who saw their mean incomes increase far greater than the nominal increases of the lower middle-class, cuts in social spending erased the gains for many of those 'on the fence' of impoverishment.

Meanwhile, despite its mantra of deregulation, the Reagan era proved to be the largest increase in both government debt and overall government spending in history - until the Bush Administration. What there certainly was not a deficit of was ideology of de-regulation and demonizing tax brackets. Alan Greenspan, a patron-saint of the Reagan years has since admitted a flaw in his ideology. Meanwhile, 4 years ago, Vice President Dick Cheyney in some ways rightfully asserted that the Reagan regime proved deficits do not matter that much, there is no voice greater today than "save our children from government spending" coming out of today's Republican camp.

Monitoring the Eruption

Republican Majority Leader John Boehner (OH) called the Stimulus plan a down payment on a "socialist experiment" . Last Friday, in response to the Obama budget, Senator DeMint (SC) went as far as calling President Obama a "salesman of socialism". This from the party that has twice mushroomed the deficit larger than it was when its party took office?

Indeed. But hypocrisy only leads to childish antics with the GOP these days.

The up and coming Governor Piyush (pronounced PEE-ROOSH) "Bobby" Jindal got in line with his party in his response to Obama's address to Congress last Tuesday. While candidly admitting that the GOP deserves its banishment into the political wilderness, he nonetheless went on a tirade to try to frame Republican posturing in terms of 'socialist big government Dems' vs 'the gatekeepers of taxpayer money Repubs' when he said: "While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects ... and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."

As CNBC's Keith Olberman and Paul Krugman rightly pointed out - the Volcano monitoring is needed to save lives in case of massive erruptions. High speed rail projects? Well, considering that most of the developed world already uses them because they are great for business and decreases our foreign oil consumption: maybe they are not all that bad.

Jindal gave a tired-tirade that only could have persuaded the most low-brow among us. Indeed, even his fellow conservatives thought the speech was rubbish, one Fox news commentator saying it came off as "simplistic and almost childish". Instead of speaking to us like children and lambasting necessary and critical programs, he could have pointed out some real earnest faults with the Stimulus. Apparently no one is monitoring Republican speechwriters from erupting with nonsense.

Stop Whining and Do Something

Rather than tuning into misguided dribble devoid of any real solutions, citizens should take advantage of the Stimulus Plan and the President's budget. There are three central ways to do this.

• Make money from it. Whether you are Joe Sixpack or Donald Trump, the climate is rich to invest in opportunities that the administration will surely support. While there is no disagreement that some public money is wasted, there is also little argument against government's ability to spur success in the private sector. From the successes of lots of companies that utilized NASA technology (like Olympic swimsuits and Lithium batteries) to ARPANet that lead the way to the internet as we know it, the goverment has proved to be a catalyst that drives, not hinders the private sector. I am willing to bet that investments in contractors that build schools, companies that manufacture alternative fuels and successful firms that are working on digital health records will all see profitable returns in the near future.

• Follow the money. The President has promised to make his administration one of the most transparent. So far, he has been good to this promise, creating recovery.gov - a website to monitory the stimulus money. If you are a little skeptical of the administration to watch itself, check out StimulusWatch - a site started by researchers and coders. You can use these resources, and presumably ones that will follow them, to advocate your approval or disapproval of how your money is spent.
  

• Advocate GAO and CRS perform analysis. The General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service are both non-partisan research services located in the legislative branch. As citizens, we should remind our representatives and the Comptroller General to ensure analysis and accounting on government programs. Since the Stimulus includes $25 million for the GAO, we need to make sure that the Watchdogs properly report impact and return on investment analysis of the budget and the stimulus package.
  

There remains a long way to go to get us away from a toxic financial system, away from bubblenomics, towards a more sustainable and harmonious future and indeed, cutting government waste. That doesn't mean the stimulus and the budget are anything but in the direction that we elected Obama to do. Therefore, rhetoric about "Socialism" and childish antics will not help us benefit from the Stimulus. They will, if successful, garner votes for Republican politicians, but they will do little for the great majority of us.

"Pork talk" is really just Political Beef

Instead of giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest percentile and unloading money to the Department of Defense, the Administration has just cut taxes for most of us and invested in Health Care, Education and Public Infrastructure. Governor Jindal may not like it, but we'll see if he actually makes the politically unsavory move of blocking unemployment funds for his state that provisions in the Stimulus would include.

The odds are that Mr. Jindal will come to the realization that "Americans can do anything" - even humble themselves and take the money. If the young Governor does not wise up, he'll end up with some Piyush-ing down his trousers when the Democrats strike back during re-election. They'll point out that, 3 years ago, he let thousands suffer because the GOP wanted to protect notions of fiscal austerity for future posterity (got it?).

President Obama's above quotation is a benchmark that voters should use to determine how they will vote in 2012. People will likely look back and say to themselves: "gee, look at how big the deficit still is. All of these programs that are run by the feds, started under Obama. The common share stock that Uncle Sam owns is HUGE; Government is getting so big!" Instead of listening to what will be the shrill Republican cacophony lead by the up and comers like Governor Jindal of "think of the huge burden on your kids!"The correct consideration is one launched by the Great Debater himself: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

The childish cynics and the tired old arguments of a "creeping socialism" need to stop. While opposition within Government is fair, it needs to be more than a slogan hypocritically left to the way side when in power. Critics of the President's fiscal spending need to offer real specifics, not ideological wedges or child speak. The GOP should cease in calling real fiscal stimulus "pork" and cut the political bull. After all: who needs beef in a time of national unity?